This essay examines the character of Falstaff in Shakespeare's Henry IV, arguing that despite his roguish, dishonest exterior, Falstaff emerges as one of the most authentic and genuinely loyal figures in the play. The paper explores his function as comic relief, his role as mentor and foil to Prince Harry, and the moral complexities that make him, paradoxically, more noble in conduct than many of the titled characters around him. Drawing on critical perspectives from Harold Bloom and Harold C. Goddard, as well as the historical origins of the character in the real-life figure of Oldcastle, the essay presents Falstaff as an indispensable dramatic device and one of Shakespeare's most enduring creations.
The paper demonstrates effective use of scholarly quotation and attribution. Extended block quotations from Bloom and Goddard are introduced with context and followed by the writer's own interpretive commentary, showing that cited material supports rather than replaces the essay's argument. This technique — quote, context, analysis — is a core academic writing skill at the undergraduate level.
The essay moves from an initial character sketch (comic rogue, bad-boy appeal) through a moral comparison with the nobility, then deepens into the mentor-protégé relationship between Falstaff and Harry. It pivots to historical and biographical context (the Oldcastle controversy), engages major critics (Bloom and Goddard), and closes with a functional argument about Falstaff's dramatic necessity. This progression — from surface characterization to structural purpose — gives the essay a logical arc.
Falstaff is memorable because he is funny. He is the comic relief in the play, and in the life of the prince. In a way, Falstaff is that "bad boy" we all seem to want to be when we are children. He is an outlaw, and not entirely off base when he speaks of dying on the gallows, as that is the punishment meted out to thieves and highwaymen. He also takes advantage of his friendship with the prince in order to live better than he otherwise could. One wonders whether he believes that his friendship with Prince Harry might actually save him from the gallows if he were caught, but this is never said.
Falstaff made life exciting for Prince Harry, and he was fun to be around. His character stands in sharp contrast to the nobility who will be Harry's companions at court when he becomes king, and he seems quite dishonest by comparison. However, in some ways he is truer than any of the noblemen, because he is entirely candid about his own self-interest. It is not that he does not lie — he does. In the last scene of Act II, he tells of how he and his companions were robbed by other highwaymen after capturing their prize: "All! I know not what you call all; but if I fought not with fifty of them, I am a bunch of radish: if there were not two or three and fifty upon poor old Jack, then am I no two-legged creature." Harry and Poins were, of course, the very robbers who had fallen on them as a practical joke, and Falstaff's men had all fled immediately. As Falstaff tells his tale and fields questions, the lies become more and more exaggerated.
So Falstaff will lie, but he is a good counselor to Harry when he warns that the nobles are plotting against him and that he needs to return to the palace. In one sense, Falstaff is a truer friend than any Harry has, and more loyal. He is a robber and a rogue, but he makes no pretense of being anything else. He openly declares that honor is worthless if it does not yield some tangible reward. The nobility, by contrast, can be quite hypocritical — professing and even claiming honor while secretly plotting against the heir apparent.
Falstaff appears in several of Shakespeare's plays, though there is some scholarly contention about whether he is portrayed consistently across all of them. His function as a voice of blunt, self-aware honesty remains one of his most distinctive and dramatically valuable qualities throughout.
Falstaff has served as Harry's mentor, proving a reasonably good judge of character. Henry learned a great deal from Falstaff about human nature. Their role-playing scenes illustrate this clearly, but they also reveal the significant cultural distance and difference of station and education that exists between them. Falstaff is a very complicated character, though seemingly simple on the surface. His friendship with Harry is truer than that of many nobles who merely profess friendship. While Falstaff is not above mooching off Harry and is often impolite, he is never cruel and never pretends to be other than himself.
Harry, on the other hand, is not above making quite cutting and mean remarks. Leaving Falstaff to walk all the way to London after the practical joke of robbing the robbers was particularly unkind, given Falstaff's advanced age and considerable bulk. One sometimes wishes there were a little more of Falstaff in Henry.
In this way, Falstaff is actually more noble than Prince Harry, since Harry is using him — at least in part — to make everyone believe he is lower than a proper royal should be. Harry's intention is to create a sharper contrast when he "supposedly" reforms and presents himself as a worthy heir to the throne. Harry has no trouble casting his friend aside to make himself look good, even as Falstaff entreats him not to break the friendship, out of genuine affection for the prince. We cannot help feeling a little disappointed in Prince Harry, and a little sorry for Falstaff.
Bloom, Harold, ed. Falstaff. New York: Chelsea House, 1992.
Goddard, Harold C. "Henry IV." Falstaff. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1992. 110–124.
Weis, René, ed. Henry IV, Part 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Wilson, J. Dover. The Fortunes of Falstaff. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1944.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.